Still no ligatures support in foot, which is critical in dev environment.
I use and love ligatures, but calling them "critical" is weird. I'll have to admit that they're the reason I don't use alacritty, though.
Lowering resource usage with foot and systemd
31–33 of 33 posts
Re: Lowering resource usage with foot and systemd
#32> Right of the bat, it is rather evident that this configuration will spawn two instances of foot, one for each scratchpad. > Figure 1: Snapshot of memory consumption (from btop), clients take around 10x less memory By all means use a server/clients approach if it reduces per-process memory, but it's probably not as bad as it looks, because AFAIK the actual executable only gets loaded once and then reused. So each pr…
btop might be measuring the wrong thing here, but alacritty on my box shows 93M using the same interface. I remember benchmarking foot and alacritty (also kitty) pretty extensively a few years ago, and settled on foot. Though of course, the memory usage on modern machines is really not a major issue, but the configuration update, along with the tmux session death was annoying.. EDIT: Some timing metrics.. foot -s & h…
timing footclient -e true is not actually measuring what you think its measuring. It's measuring the time it takes to open a socket and write a few bytes to it. Not the time it takes to run true in a new window and then close it. And just FYI both alacritty and kitty have server/client modes too. foot without server client mode does indeed startup faster than any GPU based terminal emulator because GPU based terminal emulators have to probe the GPU card(s) ont he system for their capabilities which is approx 100ms of unavoidable delay until someone convinces the kernel developers to cache this data.
In client server mode all of foot/alacritty/kitty/urxvt will open windows in a few ms.
Re: Lowering resource usage with foot and systemd
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
btop might be measuring the wrong thing here, but alacritty on my box shows 93M using the same interface. I remember benchmarking foot and alacritty (also kitty) pretty extensively a few years ago, and settled on foot. Though of course, the memory usage on modern machines is really not a major issue, but the configuration update, along with the tmux session death was annoying.. EDIT: Some timing metrics.. foot -s & h…
timing footclient -e true is not actually measuring what you think its measuring. It's measuring the time it takes to open a socket and write a few bytes to it. Not the time it takes to run true in a new window and then close it. And just FYI both alacritty and kitty have server/client modes too. foot without server client mode does indeed startup faster than any GPU based terminal emulator because GPU based terminal…
Good point, however, window creation times aside, the official project org has some benchmarks (https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot/src/branch/master/doc/benchma...) demonstrating speed-ups in most / all user metrics (a more nuanced discussion is on the performance page: https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot/wiki/Performance)